Transcript Highlights:

• Do you or either of your testifiers know what that generally looks like?
• And could you potentially run that through another generator?
• How much potential capacity is left there with that portion of the generation?
• We generally don't make direct payments to households.
• We generally don't make direct payments to households.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• We are a very unique state agency in the fact that we only get 37% of our general funds from the state
• If somebody qualifies for general assistance, you come to the zoo for free any day you want.
• </c> somebody qualifies for general somebody qualifies for general assistance<00:09:42.560><c> you</c
• </c><00:19:12.960><c> Veterinary</c> touch on is the general Veterinary touch on is the general Veterinary
• </c> and uh you know and I I guess generally and uh you know and I I guess generally minor<00:29:38.600

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• The state does have a state general property tax, sometimes referred to as the state general levy, and
• </c><00:13:39.920><c> when</c> that you know I would say generally when that you know I would say generally
• That's multi-generations in their homes.
• It doesn't cost us anything, zero general fund costs.
• It doesn't cost us anything, zero general fund costs.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> been a problem that has generated been a problem that has generated litigation<00:55:12.599><c>
• </c><01:45:03.560><c> comment</c> make that as a as a general comment make that as a as a general comment
• </c><04:22:06.760><c> um</c> provided here or the bill in general um provided here or the bill in general
• So that's it generally. Thank you.
• </c><04:32:53.080><c> fund</c><04:32:54.080><c> um</c> about the general fund um about the general fund

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee held a public hearing on HB 402, a bill to repeal a provision in RSA 194-F:2 stating that Education Freedom Account (EFA) funds “shall not constitute taxable income” to the parent or student. The bill sponsor argued the current language is misleading because the state cannot determine federal tax liability, and said the bill would simply remove inaccurate tax advice from state law. He cited IRS guidance and prior federal legislation, including a Ted Cruz proposal, to suggest some EFA uses may be taxable under federal law, while others may not, and said the bill could be amended if needed to avoid confusion. Testimony was sharply divided. Py Campbell opposed the bill, arguing it would unfairly single out EFA students and could amount to a tax on education funds, including for self-employed families, and recommended it be voted inexpedient to legislate. Stephen Matthew French, a tax preparer, also opposed the bill, saying IRS Publication 970 already makes clear that scholarship-type payments used for tuition and related expenses are not taxable, and that the bill addresses a problem that does not exist. He warned that adding tax reporting requirements could create administrative costs for families and the program administrator. Bill Ardinger, a tax attorney, supported the repeal of the statutory language, saying the state should not place potentially incorrect tax advice into law. He explained that under federal tax law, only certain scholarship-like uses are exempt, while many EFA-eligible expenses may not be, especially for families using the program for homeschooling or other nontraditional expenses. He said the current statute could mislead families into thinking all EFA payments are tax-free and could expose the state to future legal problems. The hearing ended after questions from committee members; no vote or final action was taken in the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• It It's about their general attitude of not giving a their general attitude of not giving a their general
• So one, we ask the general bill. So one, we ask the general bill.
• I can see if it was a general bill that people were against. general bill that people were against. general
• We all go against general bills that We all go against general bills that We all go against general bills
• In this particular issue, the general lady on the other side the general lady on the other side the general

Bills: HJR 1, HB 9, HB 21, HB 26, HB 30, HB 37, HB 116, HB 630, HB 879, HB 913, HB 1151, HB 1318, HB 1593, HB 1899, HB 2703, HB 2809, HB 2890, HB 2970, HB 3307, HB 3526, HB 5092, SB 128, SB 203, SB 317, SB 393, SB 397, SB 644, SB 731, SB 801, SB 913, SB 1071, SB 1073, SB 1086, SB 1087, SB 1232, SB 1250, SB 1262, SB 1285, SB 1310, SB 1359, SB 1444, SB 1483, SB 1705, SB 1782, SB 1861, SB 1897, SB 1944, SB 2023, SB 2043, SB 2082, SB 2133, SB 2215, SB 2297, SB 2298, SB 2309, SB 2532, SB 2549, SB 2566, SB 2617, SB 2619, SB 2639, SB 2688, SB 2696, SB 2717, SB 2790, SB 2841, SB 2847, SB 2850, SB 2857, SB 2891, SB 2919, SB 2928, SB 2972, SB 3052, SB 3053, SB 1, SB 260, SB 1506, SB 1637, HB 37, HB 109, HB 334, HB 1130, HB 1238, HB 1327, HB 1610, HB 1615, HB 1620, HB 1689, HB 2081, HB 2809, HB 2884, HB 2890, HB 4215, HB 5092, HCR 7, HCR 75, HCR 86, HCR 92, HCR 93, HCR 126, SB 644, SB 1086, SB 1230, SB 1310, SB 1361, SB 1553, SB 1778, SB 1790, SB 2344, SB 2460, SB 2515, SB 2600, SB 2747, SB 2751, SB 2785, SB 2790, SB 3047, SB 3048, SB 3050, SB 3051, SB 3052, SB 3053, SB 3056, SB 3058, SB 3061, HJR 1, HB 1130, HB 1689, HB 2884, HB 1393, HB 2559, HB 26, HB 3012, HB 1327, HB 109, HB 1238, HB 2890, HB 9, HB 4215, HB 2970, HB 37, HB 1899, HB 1593, HB 2607, HB 3526, HB 3810, HB 5092, HB 388, HB 2809, HB 1151, HB 913, HB 3307, HB 879, HB 116, HB 12, HB 2703, HB 1610, HB 1615, HB 1620, HB 30, HB 21, HB 2712, HB 2692, HB 1633, HB 1318, HB 685, HB 630, HB 4753, HB 2742, HB 303, HB 198, HB 1535, HB 762, HB 148, HB 1520, HB 5061, HB 2286, HB 1606, HB 1041, HB 132, HB 11, HCR 7, HCR 75, HCR 86, HCR 92, HCR 93, HCR 126, SJR 36, SJR 50, SJR 63, SCR 12, SCR 39, SB 2023, SB 1310, SB 2972, SB 1073, SB 2847, SB 2532, SB 2619, SB 62, SB 666, SB 847, SB 284, SB 854, SB 810, SB 1505, SB 583, SB 507, SB 1434, SB 1772, SB 2016, SB 1122, SB 731, SB 397, SB 508, SB 1436, SB 287, SB 1882, SB 393, SB 1791, SB 209, SB 2429, SB 511, SB 2309, SB 1085, SB 1975, SB 2717, SB 1262, SB 636, SB 2056, SB 884, SB 1200, SB 1845, SB 2458, SB 801, SB 3014, SB 3013, SB 758, SB 2797, SB 2076, SB 2876, SB 1640, SB 1449, SB 1181, SB 1359, SB 1234, SB 2926, SB 2841, SB 1528, SB 2891, SB 1854, SB 317, SB 1250, SB 2082, SB 1285, SB 1237, SB 2819, SB 629, SB 2608, SB 1602, SB 2009, SB 2460, SB 867, SB 640, SB 1698, SB 2680, SB 2994, SB 2747, SB 913, SB 1071, SB 1086, SB 1087, SB 1483, SB 1444, SB 1553, SB 1556, SB 1703, SB 2133, SB 2297, SB 2298, SB 2622, SB 2955, SB 2334, SB 1861, SB 2043, SB 1367, SB 2857, SB 128, SB 3058, SB 2044, SB 2363, SB 2565, SB 1888, SB 3048, SB 3052, SB 3053, SB 3036, SB 3057, SB 3056, SB 3043, SB 3050, SB 3063, SB 3035, SB 1790, SB 1778, SB 203, SB 3061, SB 2799, SB 2790, SB 2688, SB 2515, SB 1230, SB 2522, SB 2639, SB 2459, SB 3051, SB 2655, SB 2251, SB 1884, SB 2617, SB 2751, SB 2928, SB 2566, SB 1897, SB 1749, SB 1361, SB 2549, SB 2553, SB 2919, SB 1782, SB 1705, SB 2696, SB 1944, SB 2215, SB 644, SB 1232, SB 2850, HB 45, HB 48, HB 1261, HB 1465, HB 1778, HB 2596, HB 5238, HB 33, HB 1188, HB 210, HB 1022, HB 1458, HB 5560, HB 1240, HB 1950, HB 2027, HB 2768, HB 2788, HB 2791, HB 3146, HB 3698, HB 3699, HB 1893, HB 3700, HB 4850, HB 4187, HB 1397, HB 4885, HB 4804, HB 3751, HB 3611, HB 2775, HB 2061, HB 2003, HB 1729, HB 1242, HB 791, HB 2029, HB 647, HB 2522, HB 4738, HB 3033, HB 3594, HB 3474, HB 2563, HB 2802, HCR 90, SJR 87, SB 2969, SB 3073, SB 2497, SB 1798, SB 2603, SB 2607, SB 781, SJR 34, SB 17, SB 314, SB 455, SB 509, SB 529, SB 541, SB 693, SB 761, SB 963, SB 1023, SB 1968, SB 2122, SB 2308, SB 2371, SB 2420, SB 2544, SJR 87, SB 1285, SB 1359, SB 2857, SB 3073, HJR 1, HB 9, HB 21, HB 116, HB 913, HB 1151, HB 1899, HB 2970, HB 3307, SB 1073, SB 1310, SB 2532, SB 2619, SB 2847, SB 2972, SB 128, SB 2043, SR 393, SR 511, SR 518, SR 520, SB 314, SB 455, SB 761, SB 1023, SB 2122, SB 2371, SB 2420, SB 17, SB 509, SB 644, SB 1230, SB 1361, SB 1778, SB 1790, SB 2460, SB 2515, SB 2747, SB 2751, SB 2790, SB 3048, SB 3050, SB 3051, SB 3052, SB 3053, SB 3056, SB 3058, SB 3061, HB 37, HB 109, HB 1130, HB 1238, HB 1327, HB 1610, HB 1615, HB 1620, HB 1689, HB 2809, HB 2884, HB 2890, HB 4215, HB 5092, HCR 7, HCR 75, HCR 86, HCR 92, HCR 93, HCR 126, SB 1086, SB 1553, HJR 182, HB 4, HB 24, HB 46, HB 101, HB 146, HB 170, HB 214, HB 305, HB 426, HB 549, HB 551, HB 594, HB 722, HB 824, HB 1119, HB 1579, HB 2215, HB 2458, HB 2530, HB 2674, HB 2713, HB 2974, HB 3015, HB 3151, HB 3180, HB 3221, HB 3359, HB 3556, HB 4088, HB 4211, HB 4396, HB 4413, HB 4580, HB 4609, HB 4864, HB 5088, HB 5154, HB 5263, HB 2294, HJR 182, HB 4, HB 24, HB 46, HB 101, HB 146, HB 170, HB 214, HB 305, HB 426, HB 549, HB 551, HB 594, HB 722, HB 824, HB 1119, HB 1579, HB 2215, HB 2458, HB 2530, HB 2674, HB 2713, HB 2974, HB 3015, HB 3151, HB 3180, HB 3221, HB 3359, HB 3556, HB 4088, HB 4211, HB 4396, HB 4413, HB 4580, HB 4609, HB 4864, HB 5088, HB 5154, HB 5263, HB 2294

Keywords: constitutional amendment, property tax, ad valorem tax, tax exemption, tangible personal property, income-producing property, business personal property, equipment exemption, machinery, local government finance, school district revenue, county taxes, Texas Constitution, Article VIII, tax relief, commercial property, appraisal district, chief appraiser, rendition statement, property tax relief

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> reasons but anyways I wanted the general reasons but anyways I wanted the general court<00:02:19.319
• </c><00:06:12.680><c> court</c> why I'm bringing it to the general court why I'm bringing it to the general
• </c><00:31:47.880><c> better</c> listen we owe the Next Generation better listen we owe the Next Generation
• I, too, share a concern about that clause with the Attorney General.
• </c> legislative budget is set and generally legislative budget is set and generally in<03:54:43.159>

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on House Bill 662, which would require public schools to include discussion of abortion procedures and show specified videos in health education classes. The prime sponsor argued the bill would ensure students receive medically accurate, age-appropriate, and nonpolitical information about abortion, saying the topic is important for informed decision-making and should be taught consistently statewide. He said the videos were intended for grades 9-12, that parents could opt out, and that the requirement was meant to supplement, not sway, students’ views. He also acknowledged the bill could be seen as limiting local control over curriculum and said the intent was to prevent the topic from being missed due to scheduling disruptions. Committee members questioned the sponsor about local control, the need for a video mandate, the source of his statistics, whether the bill could be biased or inflammatory, and whether the requirement should apply every year in high school. The sponsor said the videos were only a starting point, could be replaced by others, and were meant to be informational. He also said the bill was not intended to influence students’ decisions about abortion. Several supporters testified in favor, including representatives of New Hampshire Right to Life and others who said students should be told the “truth” about abortion and its consequences. They emphasized graphic or emotionally difficult aspects of abortion and argued that young people need this information to make informed choices. Opponents and skeptical witnesses raised concerns about prescribing curriculum, eroding local control, and the appropriateness of the material for younger high school students. The New Hampshire School Administrators Association said the bill was overly prescriptive, that health education standards are already set by the State Board of Education, and that the topics in the bill are not part of the current standards. That witness recommended the committee consider retaining the bill for further work or making it less prescriptive. No vote or final committee action was taken in the portion of the meeting provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• The first two years are very general.
• number to be generated?
• number to be generated?
• And if people can't generate that number, then they should figure out how to generate that number, because
• And if people can't generate that number, then they should figure out how to generate that number, because

Summary: The committee met on the Minot State campus for a presentation from President Shirley and several university leaders on enrollment, academics, workforce initiatives, and partnerships. Shirley reviewed the university’s financial audits, noting mostly clean results with only minor technical findings in recent years, and highlighted Minot State’s major programs, specialized accreditations, and ties to Minot Air Force Base and NCAA Division II athletics. Members asked about education workforce shortages, athletic tuition waivers, dual credit incentives, and the university’s in-state tuition policy for all students. Shirley also discussed the university’s recruitment efforts, including the Hometown Pride and Academic Excellence scholarships, campus visit growth, and the Emerging Scholars dual-credit reimbursement program. A major focus was workforce development and new academic offerings supported by legislative Workforce Education Innovation Funds. Shirley described the new Innovation Engineering program, which was developed with industry input to train broadly skilled engineers for western North Dakota, and said it had already drawn more applicants than expected. Dr. Crystal St. Peter presented a new master’s program in counseling that integrates mental health and addiction counseling to address statewide provider shortages, with a hybrid format to reach rural students. Members asked about licensure requirements, internship hours, and job placement for graduates. Shirley also outlined a new nursing simulation center and health sciences space in downtown Minot, made possible by state support and the purchase of the former Trinity Health Center West building. The committee also heard about Minot State’s efforts to build pipelines into education and special education, including the Aspire program for rural high school students and an online paraprofessional-to-special-education degree pathway. Shirley said these programs, along with new articulation agreements and a large Bush Foundation grant, are intended to address teacher shortages and keep students in North Dakota. No formal committee votes or actions were taken during the presentation; the session consisted of informational updates and member questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• Generally, no.
• Uh generally no. I think you know, no. Uh generally no.
• First up, we have um let's see. of the deputy attorney general at a of the deputy attorney general at
• :31:22.480><c> legislature</c><01:31:23.400><c> to</c> general funds from the legislature to general
• Our next generation? >> Yes.

Bills: HCR13, HCR61, HCR136, HCR185, HCR155, HCR68, HCR174, HCR178, HCR179, HCR91, HCR103, HCR115, HCR199, HR15, HR128, HR175, HR147, HR62, HR164, HR168, HR169, HR83, HR95, HR107, HR189

Keywords: coral reefs, sunscreen, environmental education, student stewardship, marine conservation, reforestation, Hawaii, Department of Land and Natural Resources, native forests, climate resilience, sustainable practices, economic opportunity, biodiversity, wildland-urban interface, WUI, wildfire mitigation, wildfire safety, Maui County, County of Maui, Kauai

Summary: The Committee on Water and Land met on March 31, 2026, and heard testimony on several resolutions. HCR 13/HR 50, which asks DLNR to work with DOE and the Public Charter School Commission on a student coral stewardship program, drew comments from DLNR, which said it stood on written testimony and had proposed amendments, and from supporters in the room. HCR 61, urging investment in reforestation policies, workforce, nursery capacity, and related support for public and private lands, received strong support from DLNR and multiple testifiers, including members of a reforestation policy hui, a resident, and others who emphasized watershed protection, flood and fire resilience, and the need to upgrade nursery infrastructure and staffing. Committee members asked questions about nursery modernization, staffing, island-specific needs, and whether reforestation could reduce wildfire impacts; the DLNR witness said all islands need investment, with especially large opportunities on Hawaiʻi Island, and that healthier forests improve resilience though they cannot eliminate climate-related risks. The committee then heard HCR 136/HR 128 on wildland-urban interface safety standards for Maui plantation towns, but no one testified. It also heard HCR 185/HR 175, which urges denial of permits for ICE detention-related warehouses; Chris Coffey of Immua Alliance testified in support, saying migrant survivors of exploitation are harmed when ICE detains people and that Hawaii would not be the first place to take such action, citing examples from other states and cities. In questioning, members explored whether a local facility would keep people closer to families and services or instead increase local detention; Coffey said detention generally cuts off access to services and can intensify fear, and that a local facility could incentivize more detention and make survivors less likely to come forward. Finally, the committee heard HCR 155/HR 147 supporting the Hawaii Water Safety Coalition’s Hawaii Water Safety Act. Testifiers included Allison Shapera, who described the statewide water safety plan, Hawaii’s high drowning rate, the economic and human costs of drownings, and her personal loss of her daughter in a preventable drowning; Kirsten Hermstead and Kalani Vierra of the Hawaiian Lifeguard Association said the plan’s recommendations need legislative recognition to help with implementation and grant funding; and Jessamine Town Horner testified by Zoom as a co-founder and bereaved family advocate. The transcript provided does not show any votes or final committee actions on the measures discussed.

Transcript Highlights:

• We intend to move this bill to the general register.
• It could come from a corporate general fund. It could come from a union general fund.
• It could come from a corporate general fund. It could come from a union general fund.
• </c> &gt;&gt; It is to move it to the general &gt;&gt; It is to move it to the general register. register
• It appears to me that general register.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Which means the general fund doesn't get those tax revenues.
• So if anything, I see this as a general fund increase and not a hit.
• The petition must include a general plan setting out a general description of the public infrastructure
• Generally, three common themes that I've heard in all these meetings.
• General Mays, it doesn't matter.

Summary: The Commerce Committee heard and passed several bills dealing with insurance fraud funding, education scholarships, apprenticeships, workers’ compensation fraud, credit unions, manufactured home installation licensing, short-term rentals, homeowners associations, condo disclosures, and an advanced manufacturing infrastructure reimbursement program. HB 4020 would raise the annual insurer assessment cap for the Department of Insurance and Financial Institutions fraud unit from $1,050 to $1,350; it passed after testimony from Nationwide supporting the added resources. HB 2255 would extend Arizona Teachers Academy scholarship eligibility for community college students from two academic years to four, and HB 2591, as amended, would revise the definition and requirements for registered apprenticeships under DES standards; both passed unanimously. HB 2680, as amended, would narrow and clarify workers’ compensation fraud-related provisions and insurance disclosure requirements, and HB 2979, as amended, would modernize credit union bylaws, name changes, and operating powers; both also received due pass recommendations. HB 2868, which adds insurance and fingerprint-clearance requirements for manufactured home/mobile home installation licensees and gives the Department of Housing additional licensing authority, passed with some members present or voting no. The committee also took up HB 2429, a strike-everything amendment on short-term rentals that would let local governments set occupancy limits, extend the violation window for suspension actions from 12 to 24 months, and allow suspension after certain building code violations. The sponsor and city officials described it as a compromise giving communities more local control, while short-term rental owners and neighborhood advocates raised concerns about overbroad enforcement and the scale of the housing impacts; the bill passed 8-2 with one present. HB 4011, which would codify duties for condominium and planned community associations to act reasonably and provide access to information, was heard without the proposed Carter amendment and passed 11-0 after testimony from homeowners, attorneys, and HOA representatives about fairness and enforceability. HB 2397, another HOA-related bill, would expand disclosure requirements for condo and association purchases and escrow information; it passed unanimously after supporters said it would improve consumer transparency. Finally, the committee heard HB 4026, which would change the public infrastructure reimbursement program for advanced manufacturing projects by replacing the current statewide cap with a $75 million annual cap and requiring more transparency for related agreements. Supporters, including Queen Creek’s mayor, GPEC, and the Arizona Chamber, said the program helps fund roads, water, wastewater, and other infrastructure needed to attract large manufacturing investments and jobs, while some members questioned the budget impact and whether the program benefits rural areas. The discussion emphasized projects such as LG in Queen Creek and other major manufacturing investments, with supporters arguing the bill preserves Arizona’s competitiveness and generates long-term tax revenue.

Transcript Highlights:

• /c><00:12:21.839><c> feel</c><00:12:21.920><c> a</c> generation Hawaii resident, I feel a generation
• Department of the Attorney General. Good morning, Chair and members of the committee.
• Go for uh attorney general &gt;&gt; Okay. Go for uh attorney general possible.
• Going forward, we also do sell to the general public, but everything stays here.
• Going forward, we also do sell to the general public, but everything stays here.

Bills: HB1601, HB1828, HB1616, HB1603, HB1606, HB1604, HB1605

Keywords: biosecurity, invasive species, Hawaii Invasive Species Council, Department of Land and Natural Resources, appropriation, agriculture, land use, farm dwelling, renewable energy, income qualification, solar energy, geothermal resources, hydropower, agricultural tourism, aquaculture, commercial activity, swine production, Korean natural farming, land leases, Hawaii

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> from previous years is we need a general from previous years is we need a general fund<01:21:59.920
• :22:02.400><c> average</c><01:22:02.639><c> since</c> generating right now on average since generating
• So need a general fund appropriation.
• </c> basically, if we had relief, general basically, if we had relief, general fund<01:33:33.679><c>
• They are not been a general fund agency.

Keywords: Appropriations - Room 210; 22 January, 2026: 1:30 PM, 925, all

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:40:12.000><c> Ed</c> that are maintained in the General Ed that are maintained in the General
• ><c> Ed</c> their General Ed requirements General Ed their General Ed requirements General Ed classrooms
• </c> having to pull funds from general having to pull funds from general education<00:46:06.839><c> be
• </c> provided in 2022 compare that to general provided in 2022 compare that to general education<01:11
• </c> appropriate to be able to access general appropriate to be able to access general education<01:35

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The hearing focused on HB 563, which would revise the education funding formula for pupils receiving special education services by replacing the current single special education amount with three differentiated categories. Representative Rick Ladd, the prime sponsor, said the bill largely tracks a House-passed version from the prior session with minor figure adjustments, and explained that the proposal uses projected FY26 amounts for three categories based on time in general education versus more intensive placements. He also noted that the bill does not address catastrophic aid directly, but that special education aid, CAT aid, and proration all remain issues for later work sessions. Ladd and supporters argued that weighted categories better reflect actual costs and are more sustainable than treating all IEPs the same. Representative Margaret Drye said the approach was one of the best ideas from the education funding subcommittee and urged the committee to support differentiated aid. Representative Ames asked how the category amounts were derived, and Ladd said Category A follows the FY26 base, Category B is a higher weight, and Category C is a still higher weight for more intensive services, though he acknowledged the exact multipliers were developed earlier and could be revisited. He also said the committee would continue discussing whether the weights are appropriate and how they interact with CAT aid. Testimony from Bonnie Dunham strongly opposed the bill. She argued that funding based on placement rather than actual service need would create incentives to move students into more restrictive settings, could stigmatize children with labels such as "Category C," and would undermine the least restrictive environment requirements under federal special education law. She described her son’s experience in inclusive settings as beneficial and said the bill would have penalized the district for serving him there. In response to questions, she said schools and parents should base funding on the child’s actual needs and costs, not on placement, and urged the committee to recommend the bill inexpedient to legislate.

Transcript Highlights:

• House Bill 2425, requiring the Auditor General to conduct a special audit of the state land department
• That's a problem for me, not to mention them being very out of compliance on an Auditor General audit
• So I recommend that you support this bill, and we need to rein in this Attorney General.
• Furthermore, let me just say that Americans in general, sorry, hold on one second here.
• And when the Auditor General asked, why did you have school board meetings on Coronado Island?

Keywords: 1182, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We turned $2.4 million back into the general fund.
• And what is the, generally speaking...
• Now this is not general fund dollars. This is not SIF. This is purely...
• Now, this is not general fund dollars. This is not SIF.
• I would guess it could be, but generally we don't like to do that unless it's...

Bills: HB1623

Keywords: HB 1623, North Dakota, rural health, rural health transformation program, medical facility infrastructure loan fund, medical facility infrastructure loan program, rural health loan program, Bank of North Dakota, Department of Health and Human Services, HHS, federal grant, health care infrastructure, rural hospitals, critical access hospitals, nonprofit health care providers, gap financing, loan fund, public health funding, healthcare financing, Medicaid

Summary: The committee first heard House Bill 1624, the “Universal Lunch Bill,” from Rep. Mike Nathie. He argued the proposal should be placed in Century Code rather than the Constitution so future legislatures can adjust it if state finances tighten, and said the bill would start the program a year earlier with a $65 million appropriation for one school year. DPI testified that the estimate did not include nonpublic schools that do not participate, and members questioned the impact on Title I, free-and-reduced applications, private-school accountability, breakfast mandates for schools that do not currently serve breakfast, and whether the funding could come from the DPI budget or other sources. Supporters, including North Dakota United, the North Dakota Catholic Conference, a pediatrician, and the American Heart Association, said universal meals improve student health and learning, reduce family costs, and are better handled in statute than by constitutional amendment. No opposition testimony was offered, and the chair closed the hearing for later work-session action. The committee then took up House Bill 1627, introduced by Rep. Tye Dressler, which would raise the income threshold for the state-funded school lunch program from 225% to 300% of poverty, with an estimated cost of about $7 million for 2026-27. Dressler said the bill is intended as a targeted, budget-friendly alternative to the ballot measure and emphasized that the state should maximize federal meal dollars while improving participation in the current program. Members questioned whether raising the threshold would actually increase utilization, whether a dollar amount would be clearer than a percentage, and how the change would affect federal reimbursements and application rates. DPI said it could quickly calculate additional percentage levels, and the chair closed the hearing, directing DPI to prepare more numbers for the work session. Finally, the committee opened Senate Bill 2403, presented by Sen. Schiable, to create a short-term bridge-loan program for financially distressed hospitals, centered on Jacobson Memorial Hospital in Elgin. The bill would authorize up to $5 million per loan, with a $10 million appropriation available on a first-come, first-served basis, and would run only through June 30, 2027. Schiable said the hospital’s debt and operating problems threaten local health care, ambulance service, and the community’s economy, and that the proposal was designed narrowly with Bank of North Dakota review to avoid creating a broad precedent. Committee members asked whether the appropriation could be reduced and whether the bank would still apply commercial feasibility and repayment standards; Schiable said yes, the bank would still evaluate the loan and could reject it if it was not sound.

Transcript Highlights:

• But in in general<00:36:34.840><c> in</c><00:36:35.040><c> general</c><00:36:35.320><c> cases</c><00:
• 36:35.760><c> it's</c><00:36:36.160><c> it's</c> general in general cases it's it's general in general
• </c><00:51:45.800><c> public</c> Could you explain to the general public Could you explain to the general
• general.
• </c> the application to see that generally the application to see that generally they<00:52:49.360><c

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:22:49.720><c> sense</c> specifically you know my general sense specifically you know my general
• either side of the general court could either side of the general court could utilize<00:32:15.320><c
• c> when</c><00:55:32.920><c> you</c> the general program in general when you the general program in general
• I think a general rather than having, because generally ends up being a four to two.
• </c><02:27:44.359><c> to</c> you want the practice is generally to you want the practice is generally

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> in people generally speaking. in people generally speaking.
• </c> than the general population. than the general population.
• </c><03:54:32.160><c> This</c> history for generations. This history for generations.
• And sadly, the current generation, future generations, we take maybe a lot for granted.
• And sadly, the current generation, future generations, we take maybe a lot for granted.

Keywords: U.S. House of Representatives Floor Proceedings on Thursday, May 21, 2026, 1012, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We're going to begin with Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell.
• Thank you, Attorney General.
• I believe sex workers deserve more in general.
• I am a second-generation survival sex worker, professional poor person.
• I feel like these are general working-class issues.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on the Judiciary held a lengthy public hearing on a wide range of civil rights, immigration, hate crimes, and reparations bills. Chair Edwards and Chair Day opened with strict testimony rules, including two-minute limits, written testimony options, and decorum requirements. Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell testified in strong support of S. 1126/H. 1920, the Combating Hate in the Commonwealth bill, saying Massachusetts needs stronger tools to address rising hate and bias incidents. Her Civil Rights Division chief explained that the bill would give the division civil investigative demand/subpoena power, expand civil rights enforcement, close loopholes in the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act, add protected classes to the hate crimes law, and require better hate-crime data reporting. The committee also heard support for H. 1954 on access to counsel in immigration proceedings, H. 4684 on law enforcement identification and public trust, and H. 1927 to exonerate individuals accused of witchcraft in colonial Massachusetts. Several bills focused on discrimination and civil rights enforcement. Supporters of S. 1248 on organizational standing said fair housing nonprofits need explicit authority to bring discrimination complaints in their own names, especially as federal protections are under attack. On H. 1246, advocates urged adding sex and gender as protected classes in the hate crimes statute, arguing women are not protected under current state law. H. 1820 drew testimony for protections against height and weight discrimination. H. 1995 would regularize sentencing for hate crimes by requiring diversity awareness training for both convictions and continuances without a finding, and H. 1056/H. 1589 would broaden hate-crime victim standing and require restitution to be used to repair harm. H. 1886 would clarify that defense-based social service staff are exempt from mandated reporter obligations when working under attorney-client privilege. The committee also heard testimony on H. 1889/S. 1064, a bill to eliminate disparate impact. Environmental justice advocates, fair housing attorneys, and community members argued that neutral policies can still produce discriminatory outcomes and that Massachusetts should allow state-court claims and a private right of action to address them. Committee members raised concerns about litigation floodgates, punitive damages, and the scope of protected classes, while supporters said the bill would mainly target systemic harms and injunctive relief. Additional testimony supported H. 1922/S. 119, the Fair Investment Act, which would create civil rights protections in venture capital and other investment settings for founders and investors, especially women and minority entrepreneurs. The hearing also included testimony on H. 1683, the Sex Trade Survivor Act, which would expand vacatur and expungement relief for trafficking survivors, remove archaic offenses from the code, and create an interagency commission; supporters emphasized reducing barriers to housing, employment, and reentry. Finally, the committee heard extensive support for H. 1753/S. 1181, establishing a commission to study reparations in Massachusetts. Testifiers described the state’s history of slavery, redlining, and ongoing racial disparities, and urged the committee to report the bill favorably. No votes or final actions were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• New multifamily housing generates few school-age children and generates substantial tax revenue.
• There is generally no generally acceptable, generally applicable definition of quote in-home business
• /c><01:23:13.679><c> of</c> generally a applicable definition of generally a applicable definition of
• </c> there is no generally there is no generally acceptable.<01:23:20.080><c> There</c><01:23:20.320>
• There is no generally acceptable.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all